Condor Watch Talk

'Unknown' Numbers/Bios -=- list 'em here - check if already listed

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    Please post "Unknown Bios" here - Read First Please!

    (That's 2 "please" in the same sentence, so now you have to.)


    An "Unknown" (Bio) tag does not mean that you had trouble seeing the information on a condor's tag and so were not able to completely mark all the areas of the tag section - that the tag info is "unknown" to you. (There is a lot of valuable data in the photos including the location of the site, health of the condors, social status of the birds and interactions with animals, so don't stress about the tag)

    If you are 1000% positive you were clearly able to see the Condor's tag number and color but the Bio said "unknown Bio" anyway, that's what we want here. . This means the internal database has an issue reading the photo or there was a problem with the tag.

    Sometimes a condor can wear several tag variations but Zooniverse only assigns 1 tag per condor (the first tag the condor was assigned). We can note that so you can check that an "unknown" bio/tag is actually known when your data gets to the Scientists and is not a true error.

    When you get an "unknown bio" - when you're done with your photo, click "Yes I want to discuss this image" at the end of the classification.

    Hashtag it as #misID on the comment window and copy the url from that Talk image from the top of the page. Then put that URL here in a post. That way we can double check the photo and comment and also see the enlarged photo if needed.

    ~ If the issue is a misread tag (AKA Human Error πŸ˜ƒ) we can add the corrections to be kept in the photo comment. They will be left here for a day but then removed to keep the board tidy. We didn't want to just delete the board post right away because we didn't want people to go "Hey! What am I, chopped liver? My comment just gets deleted?" So here's an announcement! If you misread the tag and that's why the condor is "unknown", you are not chopped liver. πŸ˜ƒ

    Also Not MisIDs -- if you realize, after the fact, that you "missed" the tag and entered the wrong info.

    For example if you marked a tag as Blue 15, then got "unknown Bio" but then realized it was actually Black 15. (Or you had marked a "1" only to figure later that it might have a "7") It was human error so does not need to be posted or hash tagged. . Though you may sit at your computer and hang you head in shame or turn to your cat and say, "I can't believe I just did that!", the database knows in its heart that there is no Blue 15. It forgives you. . Hence the "unknown Bio" for that tag. That's why many people get the same photo to evaluate and there are several ways to find correct tag numbers (like looking at the series of photos taken around the same time frame) . Also, the scientists are really smart people who know more than we do, so they figure out things we don't even know to ask. . Spooky! . No condor/tag remains "unknown" for too long. .

    Thank you for all your hard work, patience, squinting, fun comments. We appreciate all you do!

    Have fun and carrion! πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    CURRENT UNKNOWNS & BIO ISSUES - PLEASE CHECK BEFORE YOU POST . (database adjusted & misread tags corrected 7/22 per vjbakker updates)**

    -=-=-WHITE TAGS=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    White 65 is actually a very faded Blue 65 no need to report

    White69: is thought to be Blue69, washed out by the sun.

    White 70 . . There is a White 70 tag but if you get an Unknown Bio, it could be the old Blue70 tag. This series of Blue tags, at this time (2011) all faded to white so will cause some confusion. Not to the scientists, to us πŸ˜ƒ

    White 74 is really very faded Blue 74 - - no need to report

    White99 1-dot doesn't have a bio here but we know who it is!. This is the current Black99 1-dot

    -=-=-BLACK TAGS=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    Black 06 - only the 0 underlined. This is a known tag - no need to report - there's no way to mark this correctly but we know who it is

    Black 07 - only the 0 is underlined. This is a known tag - no need to report - there's no way to mark this number correctly but we know who it is

    Black 08 - only the 0 is underlined. This is a known tag - no need to report - there's no way to mark this number correctly but we know who it is

    Black 13 ● ● ● This is plain Black 13 - condor wore both tags no need to report

    Black 77 ● ● ● This was erroneously listed as having no dots. This is bird 377. It will not have a bio. No need to report - the scientists know who it is ACW0005l5v

    -=-=OTHER TAGS-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    Blue 77 - is actually a newer tag for Blue 11 written with odd 1s. (There is no Blue77)

    Folded Blue Tag With 1 showing - No need to report, mark as 1X if you see this again please

    Orange 11 (Bird=111) - will not have a BIO but we know who she is! It is being added, so no need to report.

    Wow look how short this list got. Man, we're good . Thanks for all your tireless work on this. Don't forget to blink.

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist

    The juvenile/adult designation shouldn't matter. What the Zooniverse folks do is first identify the site the photo was taken at and then apply the wing tag key (because there is some overlap in wing tag numbers between Southern and Central CA). I am not 100% sure why this is not working smoothly, but I think the problems occur at the stage where the site reads the photo header, which identifies site location. If the wrong site is identified, the ID will come up as unknown. I am working with them to try to get this fixed but am not able to fix it myself. Thanks for your patience! And to clarify, the data you all are generating is not affected by this problem because we record everything that is entered by our wonderful volunteers and and can align the bios and tag later.

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist

    I love the initiative you all are taking here and how carefully you are documenting your observations!
    We have now entered a NEW PHASE
    We just received the last bit of missing tag info from the field sites. Thus, there should be no such thing as a truly unknown tag/unknown bird anymore. Users will continue to get some unknowns because tags can be hard to see in many photos.

    But, if you have a very clear read of the tag and you get an unknown or misID now, we would like complete info to troubleshoot. We need what photo it was and what you entered for the tag. The best way to document this is by commenting on the photo directly in the Talk section.

    Carrion!

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    A misID is when you are 100% sure you have recorded the correct color and number of a tag but the Bio comes up saying it is an Unknown Condor.

    There might have been a glitch on your page or some site "hiccup" but there's really no way to check this. Others will get the photo to evaluate and there are also photos taken before and after the photo (they are motion activated, and I think taken 5 minutes apart) so #52 will be reported. Since he was nice enough to turn sideways so his tag is clear, we won't forget him πŸ˜ƒ

    Thanks for all your hard work!

    Posted

  • itsmestephanie by itsmestephanie

    98 yellow two-dots http://www.condorwatch.org/subjects/standard/534c420dd31eae0543025901.JPG
    Or perhaps it's white...

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to itsmestephanie's comment.

    Sure looks yellow..he couldn't have posed any better πŸ˜ƒ I added it to the main page of Unknowns (with the photo link) but will leave this up until you see it. Thanks!

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to wreness's comment.

    I have to say again that this list is brilliant and super helpful with the reporting dates. Thank you wreness and everyone who contributed!!!!!!

    Posted

  • stonepenny by stonepenny

    #miss ID: 44 black juvie - '44' is clearer with screen zoom to 200!
    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0005is3

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to stonepenny's comment.

    I agree this looks like 44. I think it might be the incredibly frustrating tag A4, which looks just like 44 to me. The good news is that according to our records, there was no Black44 until 2012, and BlackA4 appeared in 2010, so we can assume anything that looks like Black44 in 2010 was Black A4 (which is bird 514). However, I have just emailed a few field biologist to confirm this is A4 because, as I say, I agree with you, it looks like 44. I'll report back.

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to stonepenny's comment.

    I have sent an updated Tag table to Zooniverse, that, when it goes live, should fix most or all of the remaining problems reported here (okay, I can hear you laughing, but willing suspension of disbelief please!). Here are my thoughts on some of the particulars on the main misID page:

    White1: Good one! This is (was) 401. Added to database. Should no longer yield unknown

    White8: I sent this photo to a few field biologists and they think it’s White81, or 481 (White8 is 408, a SoCal bird and this is a Central CA site in Pinnacles National Park). We have no records of 408 ever making a foray to Central CA (such forays were quite rare), and in addition, by this age, 408 was reportedly starting to turn pink.

    White18-3dots: Good one! This is 318. Added to database. Should no longer yield unknown

    White17: I think this photo must be White77 because the one bird that has 17 on its tag or in its full ID that was alive at the time of this photo was 317, and 317 is present in the photo

    White69: I think this is Blue69, washed out by the sun.

    Black7-underline: I think this is Black47-underline with the 4 washed out

    Blue1: Several I looked at were either too hard to read or may have been Blue 11. I’ll await an unambiguous image. Please keep posting.

    Yellow98-2dots: Good one! This is 298. Added to database. Should no longer yield unknown

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to vjbakker's comment.

    Here's a pic of A4 from the Gallery of Wing Tags - http://condorzoo.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/a4cropped1.jpg if you want to get picky, the "A" is different from the official tag and Penny's tag. Then on this official photo if it, the "A" again looks different http://condorzoo.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/a4-so-confusing-2.jpg πŸ˜ƒ

    I have found this tag many times and used to mismark it as 44 until I just gave in and decided it's A4. The condor wins!

    For the sake of sanity it's easier to look at the date of the photo and coordinate it with the probable tag. If the photo was taken in 2010, it's A4 Really. It is, honest.

    Sez me, anyway πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • inaspin by inaspin

    Hello - sorry to bother you, image ACW000118b has a clearly blue tag #65 which failed to register. Tried to copy image number but must have gone about it the wrong way! Cheers,

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to inaspin's comment.

    Thanks for reporting this inaspin! I agree that is clearly Blue65, the tag worn by condor 365. I can't see any reason that tag would come up as unknown based on the classification data we've given Zooniverse. It's possible you might have accidentally misentered something, but I am going to monitor this tag for any additional problems, and if we get more reports I'll try to sort out the issue. Thanks again.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    reposting for Stonepenny:

    stonepenny has found an interesting tag - a plain white tag with one dot.

    Well! I might have told a little lie and suggested that this was a secret special tag that might have meant that she might have possibly won a brand new Lexus, a trip to the Bahamas with Johnny Depp and the Director's Cut Special Edition Box Set of "The Big Lebowski" but I did for sure promise her that a Scientist would explain the tag to us.

    Posted

  • ElisabethB by ElisabethB moderator in response to wreness's comment.

    You are evil ! πŸ˜„ or maybe, wishful thinking ! πŸ˜„

    Could this be the underside of a tag ? Just guessing !

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to wreness's comment.

    Ding ding ding ding ding, we have a lucky winner. No, sadly, this is one of the aberrant tags. I've heard about it but actually don't have it in my records so I've put an email into the Socal condor folks. Stand by....

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to wreness's comment.

    From the release site: "looks like someone discovered β€˜ol domino.' The dot was 374’s temporary tag. Sorry it didn’t make it into the records!"
    I love that nickname for this bird/tag. 374 is now Blue74 (but he's Domino forever in my mind). He likely didn't wear this tag long, so this a bit of a rare coin. I'll get the records updated, and eventually Zooniverse will get theirs updated πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • inaspin by inaspin

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW00006rl - here is black 63 which didn't pop up at all - the other clear numbers were OK. Guessed at white 00 - came back as no bio - so it's probably me!

    Posted

  • myraf by myraf scientist

    Hi Insapin, Black 63 should have come up as a bio (condor 563), can you let us know if this happens again? Thanks!

    Posted

  • inaspin by inaspin

    Happy to oblige. I'm starting a personal log of things that are a bit glitchy 'cos I can't remember so many numbers.

    Posted

  • inaspin by inaspin

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW00002uw Has what I think was purple 25 that failed to show up at all.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    I think I read this tag correctly - 3 is visible on L tag and 7 visible on R. tag - Yellow 37 comes up Unknown Bio
    Yellow37 isn't listed as having 2 wing tags, but no condor with tag ending in "7" has 2 tags and no yellow listed as having 2 GPS transmitters. So I turn it over to you πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to wreness's comment.

    Do you think it could be 31? You know how those nubs on the ones are freakishly large on some of the tags. Also, we did not get transmitter info from the site managing Yellow31 so we can't use the presence of transmitter antenna to help us here.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to vjbakker's comment.

    I had hoped, and it could be a '1' if they really made a very stupid '1'. I flipped it upside down and the line is clearly slanted like a 7 and the top bar is very long, not a 'nub'. For the sake of sanity we can call it a '1' until next time? πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist

    Regarding the tag issues in this photo: http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0002efx,
    I emailed the condor biologists who work with the birds in the field. This was the response:

    White/Blue74
    "1) Yes, I agree with you that the 74 looks like a faded blue. I believe we had various shades of blue over the years and one was a lighter blue with black print versus the brighter teal blue with white print that is in use now"

    Orange11
    "2) The orange tag is definitely 111. Whoops, sorry it looks like we left that one off of the tag IDs spreadsheet! It was probably on her for a short time but I can get you those dates next Monday if it would help."

    So we will get the tag key updated to resolve the Orange 11, tho it make take awhile before Zooniverse deploys the fix. Thank you all so much for your ongoing help finding the gaps in our knowledge

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to vjbakker's comment.

    ...added Orange 11 to list of tag #s on Tag Board

    Posted

  • stonepenny by stonepenny

    no 7 white, on right, no bio?

    Image ACW0004ebj
    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0004ebj

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    Here's one from Inaspin

    Black77 3-dots old photo, not in database (with dots, anyway). OooOooooO a mystery!

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    Posted for Miltonbosch:

    Black 06 - only the 0 underlined

    A while back we had a "sister" tag Black 07 with only the 0 underlined

    I think the answer was that Black 07 was a very fleeting temporary tag and it would be added to the BIO pages. It hasn't been reported since then, but don't know if it's been seen again. Not sure if this is also the issue with Black07

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist

    Yes indeed, Black77 3 dots is 377 (that's logical πŸ˜ƒ and was missing from our records. Likewise Black06 and 07 with underlined 0s were 306 and 307 and were also missing from our records. Our records have now been added. May take awhile to get the tag table for CW updated. THANK you all for your eagle eyes.

    Posted

  • inaspin by inaspin

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW000035v Sorry to be a pain, but there's a Black96 in the middle of this scrum which returns a "no bio"

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to inaspin's comment.

    You are not a pain. Ever.

    It does look black, but it's actually Blue96. It often looks black in other pics, too, due to the shadows or angle but it's the only 96 tag and the lettering is kind of neat because it's so symmetrical. πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • inaspin by inaspin

    N Q Very much! I shall look out for this one and make sure to call it blue! πŸ˜ƒ πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    Posting for CatchATiger:

    White99 1-dot

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to wreness's comment.

    This bird wore this white tag for a bit, (199) and now has the jaunty Black99 1-dot tag. Same bird, different package. πŸ˜ƒ

    Thanks for pointing it out! I'll add it to the "Known Unknowns" list

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    Post for Canmore1919:

    A hilarious photo & comment (I have aspired to inspired πŸ˜ƒ)

    Orange11 .. not in database. Don't know what other # it could be.

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    Zombie condor/ wrong Bio: This condor was ID'ed as 400, who was not born when this photo was taken on 05/01/2004. Tag is Black 0 underlined.

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0003zwp

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd in response to wreness's comment.

    In spite of Orange 11 being identified as condor 111, the database still does not show it per Canmore1919 just 3 days ago, where he clearly spotted Orange 11. Bird 111 was also tagged Red 11 for some time, as well. This orange tag does not look like a faded red tag.

    Orange 11 has been a chronic wrong Bio problem since page 1 of this Discussion - seven months ago. We know who the condor is, but we still need the Zoo to fix it.

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0003zfe

    Strange rectangular tag, apparently white, with a black 7 on it. Date is 03/07/2008

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist

    Will try to sort out orange 11. Sorry about this.

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    Added to my list. Thank you!

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    To my eye this one looks like black 11 underline, which is 411. He hatched in 2006.

    Posted

  • stonepenny by stonepenny

    #tag 26 white no bio? bird on right, 2nd in

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0002hk2

    Image ACW0002hk2

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to stonepenny's comment.

    It's Blue26

    Posted

  • illy.b by illy.b

    Blue 77 http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW00047cz

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to ilse.betts's comment.

    Hi!

    This turns out to be Blue 11. (And yes, you can go "huh?" πŸ˜„) Blue11 is a frequently seen tag and has always looked the same, so it's good to know that they have a newly written starting at this date.

    I'll add this to the list of "Known Unknowns" (the 2nd post on this board) which are tags with I.D.issues. Unless they can get one of the ravens out there with a paintbrush, this will be one of those tags πŸ˜ƒ

    Thanks for reporting that!

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    Image ACW0003yhj
    MisID? I'm pretty sure I saw 98 white w/two dots; then it said no bio.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to mapat's comment.

    You are correct! It's incorrect! πŸ˜ƒ Reported. Will let you know, and thank you!

    Posted

  • inaspin by inaspin

    White 17 with no bio http://www.condorwatch.org/subjects/standard/534c3d52d31eae0543004f1d.JPG don't think I'm seeing things, but you never know. Cheers

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to inaspin's comment.

    It's 77 but you're not seeing things. It looks like 17-ishy.

    It would seem to make it easier for all concerned to standardize the numbering system across all tags and make every "1" a plain straight thick line - no little hooks at the top or embellishments; and slant every "7"s bottom line on a 45 degree angle. I wonder if the field people find the numbers as puzzling to read sometimes like we do?

    Posted

  • myraf by myraf scientist

    Yes, I agree it would be great to standardize the tag numbering but I am pretty sure each release sites makes their own tags to some extent so they just have to do with what they have and sometimes the printing equipment isn't working well. The field biologists know these birds so well that they can identify even a partial tag just with knowing who likes to dine with who, which ones might be in the zoo for treatment of lead poisoning, and on and on. The amazing thing about working with the condor program is that each condor is very well known to the field biologists (which sometimes makes it harder for us researchers to get caught up on all the nuances of what these birds do on a daily basis!) but provides an amazing opportunity for research. This is also why the data you collect for CondorWatch can be used with all the other information we know about the birds to answer some important questions related to lead poisoning risk for these scavenging species. So thank you for your work on CondorWatch!

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    Reposted for mapat:

    purple 4 is pretty clear, but comes up 'no bio' for me.

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    Image ACW0003meh
    62 white with two dots comes up no bio

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to mapat's comment.

    This bird has a bio (262) so it might have been a temporary glitch? The bird ended up with tag Yellow62 (still 262) - only wearing White 62 1-dot in 2008. The pic is in 2009 so go figure! Another on of those :really not exactly exact" type of record keeping things, but the tag was probably replaced shortly after this and so recorded as "for that year". If it happens again post it. Otherwise the only answer is - there's a bio page for White62 Dot. Whether it was a problem with Zoo getting that info from your keyboard...we dunno.

    The link to the Purple 4 you reported above doesn't go to any known page but I'm sure I answered on the TALK photo so if you can find that one again take a look πŸ˜ƒ

    ADD: never mind...found it: http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW00002te (They're so picky you have to type the ACW part in CAPS or it won't pull up).

    That is a good BIO, too so don't know why it didn't pull up for you. Again, Zoo glitch, temp glitch at the moment or Mothership Interference? If it happens again, post. The "one time things" are hard to make a call on since they haven't happened, usually don't happen and shouldn't happen. πŸ˜•

    Hope this helps! Thanks for all you do. Have some coffee (_)3

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    Image ACW0003zz8

    9white with maybe some dark marks to right--comes up no bio.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to mapat's comment.

    Also responded on photo in TALK-

    Might be 94 but fog makes it impossible to really read tag. It's best in these cases, and all cases where tag info isn't absolutely clear to to just mark what you can see (so in this case, just mark it 9X and White. Guessing at a second number would give a "no bio" if it's an incorrect guess where 9X would just send the photo in as that there's a tag with 9 as the first number. Since this narrows it down for the Scientists it's easier for them to figure out who the condor is.

    Also there will be photos taken before and after the ones you're seeing. The fog can clear up, the birds can change their angle, etc. Whatever the problem is that the tag can't be seen will change and eventually the tag info will be seen. Even just marking the color of a tag that you see a bird has or that a bird does have a tag is helpful info.

    The other data in the photos are just as important so it's not all about the tags, though. They will show up eventually, so just mark what you can see and use the "X" as a substitute for what you can't. Save your eyeballs and your patience πŸ˜ƒ

    Thanks for all you do!

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    Image ACW00033ql

    Black 3 with 2 dots, comes up no bio.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to mapat's comment.

    There are dots under the number πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    Image ACW0005k96

    V1 black comes up no bio, but I think I did not capitalize the V, so maybe that's why?

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to mapat's comment.

    The V1 tag is also underlined. Any dots or underline on a tag is crucial in identifying the tag.

    In some cases a condor can wear the same tag number but dots and underline have been added or removed as the years go by (even the tag color can be changed on a condor but the number does not) An example of this would be Condor 418 who wore the tags Black -8 underline, Black18 4-dots, Black18 Underline, White18. Quite a fashion plate πŸ˜ƒ

    In the case of V1 underline, since there is only one magnificent V1 tag, the scientists will know who the bird is when they see the data on their end (they pretty much know Who is Who when "mistakes" made on the marking sheets anyway) V1 is a rare tag to see because they didn't wear that tag for very long. This bird is more commonly known as tag Black51 (451) who sadly died of lead poisoning on December 7, 2013 at 6.6 years of age.

    Posted

  • inaspin by inaspin

    White45 came up with 'no bio' - doesn't seem to be reported, but I may have missed it. http://www.condorwatch.org/subjects/standard/534c4062d31eae0543019e5f.JPG Mentioned it in "talk" as well, just in case the link doesn't work...

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to inaspin's comment.

    Also answered on Talk comment:

    There's no White45 tag so the next idea is this is White48. I see you already looked at the giant pic so I won't post it here again. If you really look at the tag again and fill in the areas to make the 5 into an 8 you can see it. But how weird! It really, really looks like a 5.

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    Image ACW0005kmn

    black 01, four dots, came up no bio

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to mapat's comment.

    Also left a comment on the TALK page: It's the grass misbehaving again. This is a really good one! It's Black01 Underline but a leaf tip on the left and then grass, in the foreground, is making it look like dots. There is no Black01 4-dots tag. Even knowing that, this looks like it so this is a great illusion. I put it on the Optical Illusion board for you πŸ˜ƒ

    Giant Pic

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to wreness's comment.

    Yes, they apparently made this tag on international Roman numeral day and later thought better of it and replaced with a proper tag πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to wreness's comment.

    I agree this one is really deceiving and almost hard to believe. Here's the same bird moments earlier -- looks a bit more like an 8 in this image. (uh, oh, wreness, am I messing up your board by inserting the image instead of a link? what is protocol? feel free to delete)

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to vjbakker's comment.

    I am in awe you got the board to post a photo, VJ. All Hail! πŸ˜ƒ Once mapat sees the answer and when "Clean up the Unknown Board" Day comes around again I'll take all the answers down so there's not 14 pages again :X Good it's here for now to see! Thank you!

    LOL on "Roman Numeral Day"

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    Image ACW0003yyc
    78 black, 3 dots came up no bio

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    Image ACW0005kmt
    yeah, it could be 18 black, as in this photo. It works better when the ones are just a straight line, rather than with that little jag that often makes them look like 7's.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to mapat's comment.

    Stand by for a shock - a bad angle and a strangely lettered tag. I know - we never get those here πŸ˜ƒ This is actually Black18 3 dots (318).

    Posted

  • lissasmom by lissasmom

    Image ACW00045we
    black 82, one dot came up no bio

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to lissasmom's comment.

    Hi Lissamom (AKA the old @mapat!)

    That tag doesn't have a dot under it (it's just plain old Black82) but it sure looks like a dot. Just the sun catching the curve of the tag or part of the feather sticking out there. Those under-feather designs look too much like symbols and numbers - the condors should redesign them. πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • stonepenny by stonepenny

    #miss ID? 01 black 3 dots only condor in photo

    Image ACW0005kmn

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/?_ga=1.74505361.2093708344.1419614179#/subjects/ACW0005kmn

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to stonepenny's comment.

    Please see comments under your post on the photo for the explanation πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • stonepenny by stonepenny

    #miss ID: 36 white, bird on far right, 'no bio'
    Image ACW0004lgc
    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0004lgc

    Posted

  • stonepenny by stonepenny

    sorry, might be 38 white... I used screen zoom to 400!

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to stonepenny's comment.

    It's 38.

    That one's a bit hard to see because the GPS wire cuts part of the top of the '8' off, so even enlarged it still looks very much like a "6" πŸ˜ƒ

    Large Pic

    Posted

  • stonepenny by stonepenny

    #missID: 19 orange adult. (or is it 79 orange?)
    Image ACW0002j0l
    http://talk.condorwatch.org/?_ga=1.255328776.1660984019.1432057315#/subjects/ACW0002j0l

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to stonepenny's comment.

    Yep - It's 79. You can always go check the list of colored tag numbers to see what the tag might be.

    All the tags have bios and all the bios have tags (not like the early days! yay!) so most all that will say "No Bio" mean that the tag was entered wrong (dots left off, number wrong, etc) or in some cases the page itself may glitch (which is irritating!).

    Posted

  • LucyLewis by LucyLewis

    Hi, http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW00054by had unknown bio for both white 36 & white 17. There is a white 17 reported above that was a white 77 but it doesn't look like the same tag to me. Maybe they're both really light blue or maybe I need new glasses.

    Posted

  • LucyLewis by LucyLewis

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0004xjy White 57. Another, maybe it's 51.

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to LucyLewis's comment.

    Yes, you figured it out!

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to LucyLewis's comment.

    Tough angles on both of these, but looking carefully and investigating other photos I'd say they are white11 and white38. The 1's can be particularly difficult because the shadow of the gps tag can make them look like 7s. Also, with this oblique perspective, the 1 appears to be leaning back rather than straight up and down like a proper 1.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to LucyLewis's comment.

    Hi LucyLewis! I answered on the TALK comment but am putting it here, too πŸ˜ƒ The tag is White 51 as you guessed, The wing clip is casting a shadow at the top of the tag. (This is common) The bottom line of the 7s tend to be more on an angle

    (in a perfect world, here's a perfect 7 .

    The 1s are straight up and down. Some are quite skinny and some can be fat.

    Feathers can get in the way at the top, too, and make it look like a shadow but again, look at the "slant". As always just do the best you can - and have fun! πŸ˜ƒ (and thanks VJ!)

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    Image ACW0005l1t

    Looks like black 71 with two dots; came up no bio.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to mapat's comment.

    Hi! It's Black 75 3-dots! Those tags get creased from the GPS antennea that runs down the center of the tag, and if you look carefully at that tag again you can see it's a bit curved, like a bowl. Some of it's hidden and yes, it does look like a "1" and you do see 2 dots. So it's not you, it's perfectly sensible it looks like 71 2-dots.

    Half the fun of trying to guess tags you can't see well is knowing you have a 90% chance of being 50% wrong πŸ˜„

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    #misID black 84, one dot comes up no bio
    Image ACW0005li5

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    not sure I did that right... #misID black 3 came up no bio
    Image ACW0005kab

    Posted